User talk:Redbacks Again

October 2017
Hello, I'm Mendaliv. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Madagascar (ship) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Meters. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Frank the Poet have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. I agree with the removal of that link. A self-published e-book is not something we need to link to. Meters (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Medaliv: You are wrong my interest is in providing objective historical fact. I quote the book so that people can see the research for themselves and not for self promotion. Your site states that edits should site references and so I do. Please return my edits to the page.

Thankyou Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbacks Again (talk • contribs) 03:33, October 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * The book is self-published and does not appear to be a reliable source. See WP:RS. Furthermore, since you state here that this is your research and sign your posts "Geoff" it appears that you are Geoff Steward, the writer of the book you keep mentioning. Please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Frank the Poet, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are going to get yourself blocked if you keep this up. Meters (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Frank the Poet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Request for mediation rejected

 * I've been thinking about this and want to add this recommendation: If you're really dedicated to pursuing this you might ask for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse. You're bumping up against some fairly fundamental Wikipedia principles and editors working in the articles and at dispute resolution forums are not, generally, going to teach you how to edit Wikipedia. The Teahouse isn't going to give you a course in that, either, but they might help you work through some of the conceptual difficulties which you're encountering. Finally, here's something that you need to know: We don't have a group of paid editors to decide what should go in the encyclopedia. What we have instead are the verifiability policy to set the threshold for what is allowed in the encyclopedia (and which establishes the reliable source requirement), the neutral point of view policy to decide how much weight, if any, the material allowed by the verifiability policy should be given, and the no original research policy which prohibits personal opinion or research from being included in the encyclopedia unless it also can be supported by reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia without any analysis or interpretation. (There are also other standards for particular kinds of information, such as the this policy about information about living people, but they're not at play here.) Contrariwise, if you believe information should be removed (or reduced in importance) in Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that it somehow doesn't comply with one or more of those policies. You've made reference to the idea that people are obfuscating the issue with your edits by referring to policy, but those policies do in fact control what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not simply an open source to which information can be randomly added at the whim of the person adding it or added with mere claims of authority or truth. Because of our policies about inclusion of only information which can be supported by reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, it is possible that information which when viewed from a point of omniscient absolute objectivity is absolutely true and vitally important can be rejected while information which is, from that point of view, objectively obsolete or incorrect can be included. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC) (individually and not on behalf of the Mediation Committee)